Marxism Reading Group | Starting Dec 1: China Miéville's October

Page 1 of 1

This year marks the centennial of the Russian revolution (today itself, in fact, is 100 years to the day from when the Red Guards led the insurrection in St Petersburg), and the next is the bicentennial of Marx's birth. What better time to read the Marxist 'classics'? And to make it convenient and approachable, I propose to seize the opportunity with a casual reading group focused on directly engaging with these ideas by reading the primary sources, and developing one's views on this movement that repeatedly reemerges in the sweeps of history, ever eager to help dig capitalism's grave.

The expectation here is not to create a primer on orthodoxy, if there can even be said to exist a Marxist orthodoxy these days. Maybe you're new, interested in understanding what Marxism means, what Marx said, and whether it continues to be relevant or should be tossed into the rubbish bin of history. Maybe you've encountered the major works before and would like to take the time to reread them (this is my case). Maybe you're actually opposed to radical leftism, but you've never read Marx himself and feel like that's something missing in your intellectual development. We're open to all who are sincere in their commitment to read, learn, and civilly discuss.

The basic structure of the reading group will be: at predetermined intervals, everyone will read an agreed upon chunk of the Marxist literature - most likely excerpts from the works of Marx, Engels, or other prominent Marxists. The readings could range from a consideration of Marx's early works up to modern books and articles on Marx - all depending on the interests of the group.

I don't plan to initiate the readings, however, until early 2018. This will give us time to determine our shared interests and seek out the relevant materials. The first readings will probably be introductory - the Communist Manifesto, the basic terminology, and perhaps some good guides to Marx in the secondary literature. Future readings will cover different topics as we see fit, whether it's delving into value theory, exploring the dialectic, debating the concept of historical stages and determinism, or anything else. We can focus on history, on philosophy, on economics, on cultural critique, or any combination of the above.

If you're interested, to get us started please list below why you'd like to participate, what your preexisting engagement with the topic has been (if any), what specifically about Marxism you'd like to explore ("the basics" is a completely adequate response here), and how often you'd prefer the reading deadlines to be.

Interested. I've read the manifesto and that's about it. I would imagine Capital needs to be read, but that's quite the read and will require some time to do so. Maybe for longer reads we can break it up into sections like this was a college course. That way the thread stays fresh without long droughts in between reads.

Economics and it's effects on society interest me. The concept of capital and it's relationship with labor is a part of that.

I would also suggest that we try and find similarities between the old texts and current economies. The rise of unions. The concept of a market based socialist economy.

I feel that the modern world is deeply, deeply fucked up in a basic way. The excesses and problems inherent in an unrestrained capitalist world are plain to see, but I don't claim to have the solution.

I'm a late comer to leftist thought and I'll admit that my basic knowledge is lacking. I'd like to change that.

By FenderputtyGo To Post... like this was a college course. That way the thread stays fresh without long droughts in between reads.

That was my plan for the structure of the reading group: based upon everyone's interests, I'd develop a schedule along the lines of a syllabus, and we'd take it from there.

Practical question time: how often would we like to meet back after the readings - weekly, monthly? Obviously, the discussions could continue through, and some may even want to pull from the material they're currently reading, but the foundation would still be a regular schedule with 'required' and 'optional' readings - the former only really being 'required' in the sense that you probably won't be able to follow and participate in the discussion without having read them.

That's something we could aim for, but I think it'd probably be more approachable to devour it in thematic chunks accompanied by texts from other authors, rather than in a long slog through those dense and incomplete volumes.

By FenderputtyGo To PostEconomics and it's effects on society interest me.

To clarify: do you mean economics as a field of study and how it has affected society, or the effects of the economy itself on society? There's plenty to be read in each area, so I want to make sure I'll be including the right materials.

By FenderputtyGo To PostThe concept of capital and it's relationship with labor is a part of that.

That's basically the core of Marx's work, so we'll have plenty to mine in that vein.

By FenderputtyGo To PostI would also suggest that we try and find similarities between the old texts and current economies. The rise of unions. The concept of a market based socialist economy.

By FenderputtyGo To PostHonestly my big push into socialist concepts stems from automation and how we as a society transition into a post scarcity (or close to it) world.

Some of this interest seems historical, and some seems speculative. I'll try to cover both, and we can adapt as we see fit.

An increasing amount of literature is being released on the issue of automation lately, so we'll have plenty of quite recent works to look at there; but you'll also find that the issue has a deep history in Marx's own work.

By KingGondoGo To PostThe excesses and problems inherent in an unrestrained capitalist world are plain to see, but I don't claim to have the solution.

I don't know that anyone - Marxist or otherwise - has found the solution, but I find it to be a useful tradition for thinking with to identify and investigate the problems and approach the idea of a solution radically.

By flinbad the flailerGo To PostTo clarify: do you mean economics as a field of study and how it has affected society, or the effects of the economy itself on society? There's plenty to be read in each area, so I want to make sure I'll be including the right materials.

I don't know that anyone - Marxist or otherwise - has found the solution, but I find it to be a useful tradition for thinking with to identify and investigate the problems and approach the idea of a solution radically.

.

A. I suppose both now that you've re-framed that for me. The field of economics and how it affects society seems like it's mostly driven through partisan politics though, so I'm not sure if that's straying too far from the core topic ....

B. I once heard someone say Marx was a great predictor / thinker but not great at prescribing an antidote to to his predictions / thoughts.

Dare not accepted. Ain't nobody got time for 2500 pages of this stuff. Uno Kozo did a version in Japanese that takes out all the historical material and boils it down to 200 pgs or so, that's the only way I'd ever touch it.

Before typing up my responses to everyone, I'm curious if we'd be interested in getting started with a bit of reading now, rather than pushing it all off until next year as I originally proposed. I don't have too many bubbles of time to use for reading right now, but it'd be a way to keep the thread lively even while we work out the grander scope of our reading group.

If so, I'd suggest starting with - of course - the Manifesto. Thoughts?

By KingGondoGo To PostMy local DSA actually has a reading group. I should really attend it.

It could also give me some ideas to suggest for this reading group.

Excellent. The more suggestions, the better. I don't want the thread to just be me mining my personal book collection and uni syllabi.

By FenderputtyGo To PostA. I suppose both now that you've re-framed that for me. The field of economics and how it affects society seems like it's mostly driven through partisan politics though, so I'm not sure if that's straying too far from the core topic ….

B. I once heard someone say Marx was a great predictor / thinker but not great at prescribing an antidote to to his predictions / thoughts.

Concerning the first point, there's actually quite substantial literature on the field of economics and its effects. It's something that's become increasingly scrutinized following the success of the Mont Pelerin neoliberals in remaking the world according to their own views. But it has a long tradition, and we can look at everything from Marx's Theories of Surplus Value up to the present day.

For the latter, I'd argue that that was a necessary corollary of Marx's views themselves: the new society would find its own solutions in its own creation. As we examine Marx's work, you'll see how he ties the ideas of an age to the economy - a claim at the heart of Marxian concepts of ideology and the political superstructure (tendentious concepts we'll certainly find the time to unpack and argue over). Marx, according to his own logic, shouldn't be able to know what the future will look like, because even so steadfast a critic of the capitalist mode of production as himself couldn't fully escape it. His work trenchantly critiques the present, but the future is to be shaped by its participants.

I'm open to bringing in thinkers parallel to Marx when applicable. Perhaps we could consider Lasalle's thoughts on the state if we get into a discussion of Marxist concepts of the state - Marx's, Engels's, Lenin's, et al.

I'd prefer to keep the reading group oriented around Marxism, hence why I named it such, but it wouldn't exactly be straying far by including figures like Lasalle.

By livefromkyotoGo To PostPeople who want to know about economics and race should read Balibar. He's not light reading though.

Dare not accepted. Ain't nobody got time for 2500 pages of this stuff. Uno Kozo did a version in Japanese that takes out all the historical material and boils it down to 200 pgs or so, that's the only way I'd ever touch it.

Balibar is a great suggestion. He also has some excellent work on the philosophy of Marx, following on from his professor, Althusser's, work.

Marxism and race could be a great course to follow if that's something people are interested in. It's one of the areas I haven't studied much, so I'd happily learn quite a bit.

As for reading Capital: if you're chopping it down that much, you'd probably be better served by one of the introductory guides available on the work.

I won't pretend it's an easy read (even as someone who's read it in its entirety approximately twice), nor do I think the best approach for the reading group is to just plow into its volumes. We'll slough off our meager number of members quite quickly with that approach. My plan is to use relevant sections when they arise, but if sometime down the line the group wants to immerse themselves in it, then we can definitely try.

This sounds great. I've always had in interest in Marx but I haven't read any of his work and regrettably lag behind when it comes to reading influential works on economics. Now that I've gone back to school (yay!) a lot of this stuff will arise eventually so this reading group would be a good way to get some background knowledge for my actual courses. I'm definitely down.

I think I may be able to start reading slowly in December even, since school will be out and work will be very slow. Would that be okay?

By FenderputtyGo To PostMy child’s birth is in like 3 weeks. January would be appreciated, though I can play catch up if need be.

What I'm reading is: you have only 3 more weeks in which you'll be able to participate, after which you'll be devoured by your time-chewing spawn.

Sit up, lads. We're reading Capital - all three volumes - in the next 20 days.

By Perfect BlueGo To PostI think I may be able to start reading slowly in December even, since school will be out and work will be very slow. Would that be okay?

Since an earlier start doesn't seem to fit too well into anyone's schedule (mine included), I think we'll stick to the original plan of early 2018; but I'll compile a brief list of related but inessential readings for anyone with spare time and enthusiasm to begin early.

For a first suggestion, maybe China Miéville's recently published history of the Russian revolution, October?

By flinbad the flailerGo To PostWhat I'm reading is: you have only 3 more weeks in which you'll be able to participate, after which you'll be devoured by your time-chewing spawn.

Sit up, lads. We're reading Capital - all three volumes - in the next 20 days.

Heh ...

Hopefully child #2 resembles child #1 and will be sleeping longer periods of time in the evenings at about week 5-6. That's when my schedule started to get more normal for child #1. With fewer night time feeding breaks I get more sleep and don't go to bed at 8PM lol. Child #1 goes to bed at 7:30 to 8 so she's not an issue. It's mostly just sleep becoming priority numero uno for that first 1.5 months. By mid Jan things should be normalized, but Feb for sure.

By Zeus Ex MachinaGo To PostLike I like Marxism as a quasi ideal of "brotherhood" and "the greater good" but it has way to much faith in human nature…..

I agree. To some extent I think human nature will become less important as we reach a post scarcity society though. I hope (I think we will) touch on this and how it's shaped the modern socialist movements. Think market based socialism for example.

I'm definitely interested in this. I stopped following a lot of stuff in general for the last 5+ years, used to subscribe to Monthly Review for a long time. It'd be great to go over things that I read as an impressionable college student now that I'm in my 30s with a kid. This stuff was my focus in school, my major was Political Economy.

By FenderputtyGo To PostI agree. To some extent I think human nature will become less important as we reach a post scarcity society though. I hope (I think we will) touch on this and how it's shaped the modern socialist movements. Think market based socialism for example.

Before it imploded, Yugoslavia's model was incredibly interesting. Their ability to keep pace and even surpass Golden Age Capitalist economies while maintaining a more equal distribution curve to those same economies almost seems like a one off.

By FenderputtyGo To PostA. I suppose both now that you've re-framed that for me. The field of economics and how it affects society seems like it's mostly driven through partisan politics though, so I'm not sure if that's straying too far from the core topic ….

B. I once heard someone say Marx was a great predictor / thinker but not great at prescribing an antidote to to his predictions / thoughts.

The thing about the idea of communism is that Marx viewed it as something that comes naturally out of late stage capitalism. Basically the economy goes from producing things to growing via transfer of capital. Money -> Commodity -> More Money, and instead to Money -> More Money, also known as finance capital. At that point, capitalism ultimately fails and enters a long term trend of low growth, stagnation, and high debt.

Most of the nations that we view as "communist" or "marxist" never even went through capitalist growth. They went straight from a quasi feudal state to whatever it is that they were. The funny thing is that Marx was a big fan of capitalism and markets, until it reaches this stage. Most of the stuff in the Communist Mannifesto is a prescription to make things better for the working class without overtly destroying the market economy that needs to grow and go through its stages of life and death to birth communism.

*edit*

Also, short list of my favs:

Monopoly CapitalImperialism Without ColoniesAfter Capitalism

Gotta keep in mind that a lot of Marxist thought and writings are ultimately a critique and study of capitalism with a general end goal of an economy based on non-alienating labor and more equal distribution. That end part isn't something that can really be studied very well due to the lack of real world examples. At least as of... 10ish years ago, After Capitalism paints a fairly interesting picture of what a realistic Marxist economy would be.

By Zeus Ex MachinaGo To PostLike I like Marxism as a quasi ideal of "brotherhood" and "the greater good" but it has way to much faith in human nature…..

Maybe one of our topics can be: what is/are the Marxist conception(s) of 'human nature'. We can delve into both the explicit and implicit - the latter being what you seem to have in mind.

By zfzmikeyGo To PostGotta keep in mind that a lot of Marxist thought and writings are ultimately a critique and study of capitalism with a general end goal of an economy based on non-alienating labor and more equal distribution. That end part isn't something that can really be studied very well due to the lack of real world examples. At least as of… 10ish years ago, After Capitalism paints a fairly interesting picture of what a realistic Marxist economy would be.

That along with Envisioning Real Utopias, Inventing the Future, and Four Futures are a few of the books I have in mind as we transition towards some of the post-scarcity ideas in which people have expressed interest.

Baran & Sweezy will, I'm sure, be woven in at some point, not only for their ideas and influence, but also for the arguments they've generated within and amongst Marxists (which, for now, I'll just cryptically set aside).

After that I would certainly be interested in October by Mieville, or possibly The Communist Manifesto.

My plan is to start with October, as previously suggested, since no one seemed opposed to the suggestion. It's timely. It's accessible. And, because it's China Miéville, it's someone many people already know.

To get that started, I'll just plant this now: we'll begin it December 1st, unless there are objections. It won't be essential for any of the future reading, but it will give us something to discuss while we work up the remainder of the reading schedule and overcome any personal scheduling concerns.

From there, I'm figuring we'll move to the Manifesto in January.

I'm curious about the Singer book. He's no Marxist, but he's no capitalist either. He wrote a book on Marx years ago (not part of the Oxford series), but I've never read it.

I found it to be very good. He posits that Marx is primarily a philosopher and should be regarded as such (and not as a scientist). While Marx’s critiques of capitalism are searing and vital, his prescriptions for its abolition and his conception of human nature have not aged well.

This will be a bit of an experiment, too, because I don't know everyone's amounts of free time or their reading speeds. I don't know if most people will consider 109 pages in a week to be easy, average, or impossible. It's also why I've provided a final week for everyone to catch up through the end of the book and participate (fortunately coinciding with holidays in many places).

And for anyone who's looking for a copy of October, the publisher has a 50%-off sale going through the end of the year for both the physical and digital versions (with the added bonus of a free digital copy if you purchase the hardcover). They're also a publisher of numerous other Marxist and leftist books, so if you're browsing their site and something strikes your eye, don't just purchase it - suggest that it be added to our reading list.

I found it to be very good. He posits that Marx is primarily a philosopher and should be regarded as such (and not as a scientist). While Marx’s critiques of capitalism are searing and vital, his prescriptions for its abolition and his conception of human nature have not aged well.

I’m looking forward to reading Marx himself after we finish October.

I don't want to go off on too much of a quibbly tangent, but the idea of whether or not Marx is a 'scientist' has always seemed to be a translation issue. The German wissenschaft and the English science aren't identical. It's why, in translation, you see Kant, for example, pursuing a 'science of metaphysics,' despite the fact that to a current reader in English this is a contradiction in terms.

By flinbad the flailerGo To PostI don't want to go off on too much of a quibbly tangent, but the idea of whether or not Marx is a 'scientist' has always seemed to be a translation issue. The German wissenschaft and the English science aren't identical. It's why, in translation, you see Kant, for example, pursuing a 'science of metaphysics,' despite the fact that to a current reader in English this is a contradiction in terms.

By KingGondoGo To PostI started it but I’m still in the introductory section. Enjoying it so far and I plan on continuing even if no other SLAENT-ers join me.

I read the first few chapters, but life intervened. I'm hoping to return to it in a couple weeks. As you read it, though, feel free to put forward some questions to the group, start discussions, etc. Perhaps that'll help inspire everyone else to start/continue reading.

One thing I hadn't previously considered was the initial adherence to the stages approach, that some including Lenin believed it necessary to have a bourgeois liberal revolution before the socialist one. I guess this concept is relevant when considering the development of the Soviet Union - transitioning from feudalism - but I guess I just assumed everyone would want to strike when the iron was hot.

Book gives a good view of the tensions between the Provisional Government and the Soviets.

Enjoyed the image of Lenin opening his newspaper to see Revolution in Petrograd as the headline.

One thing I hadn't previously considered was the initial adherence to the stages approach, that some including Lenin believed it necessary to have a bourgeois liberal revolution before the socialist one. I guess this concept is relevant when considering the development of the Soviet Union - transitioning from feudalism - but I guess I just assumed everyone would want to strike when the iron was hot.

The Soviets literally would not back a revolution in Japan during the 20s because they thought it hadn't evolved far enough into capitalism yet. Which is ironic, since it was probably further along than the Russians were when they had their revolution.

Signed up for Jacobin's 4 for $5 Xmas deal and find it amusing that in the letters to the editor in the latest issue, Kerensky's grandson has written in to defend the legacy of his grandfather and provisional government.

Apologies I haven't been able to pick up October and start to contribute. New child and all. Hoping to start leading a more normal life end of Jan with regards to sleep and available time. In the meantime I plan on reading the discussion on October in here to not miss out on too much.